Divine Perfections at the Center of the Star: Reassessing Rosenzweig's Theological Language

God's truth conceals itself from those who reach for it with one hand only, regardless of whether the reaching hand is that of the objectivity of philosophers which preserves itself free of preconceptions, soaring above the objects, or that of the blindness of the theologians, proud of its experience and secluding itself from the world. God's truth wants to be entreated with both hands. It will not deny itself to him who calls upon it with the double prayer of the believer and the disbeliever. God gives of his wisdom to the one as to the other, to belief as well as to disbelief, but he gives to both only if their prayer comes before him united. ¹

Like much of the Jewish tradition that preceded him, Franz Rosenzweig is deeply concerned about the powers and limits of theological language. Rosenzweig's efforts to constrain theological language have been readily acknowledged in a range of studies that interpret his fundamental philosophical position as alternatively postmodern, postmetaphysical, nonpropositional, and apophatic. What scholars of Rosenzweig have yet to fully account for is the degree to which his efforts to discern the powers and limits of theological language plays out in the most kataphatic forms of theological reflection, that is, divine perfection. The citation above hints at a dynamic tension within the concept of divine perfection that runs throughout the Star and Rosenzweig's subsequent writings. From one perspective, the philosopher and the theologian represent a bifurcated modern consciousness that can neither abandon its commitments to reason nor its search for religious truths. More than just stock characters, the philosopher and the theologian also reflect two alternative ways of conceiving God's perfection. The philosopher, as I will argue, denotes a conception of God's perfection founded on God's transcendence and aseity. Conversely, the theologian represents a conception of God in which divine perfection manifests in an outpouring of love that founds the divine-human relationship. On this reading, Rosenzweig's injunction to approach God with belief and disbelief is not a matter of God's existence, but instead reflects an antinomy about how God's perfection comes to bear on our notions of God and God's relationship to the world. Perhaps most crucial in Rosenzweig's injunction is his insistence that philosophy and theology must function together. ² Indeed, the proper coordination of philosophical and theological commitments has soteriological implications for Rosenzweig. In what follows, I will argue that attending to Rosenzweig's conception(s) of divine perfection in the Star can bring much needed definition to Rosenzweig's own philosophical and theological positions and in doing so illuminate aspects of the Star that have remained challenging to its interpreters. After tracing the contribution that divine perfection makes in the Star, I will briefly sketch the persistence of these ideas in Rosenzweig's subsequent writings and consider the influence of F.W.J. Schelling's philosophy on Rosenzweig's views on the subject.

Despite Rosenzweig's advocacy for a closer relationship between philosophy and theology, it is not a simple matter to read off the text of the Star what this prescription entails. Were his arguments more perspicuous, I doubt that scholars would still be proliferating alternative and, often, contradictory accounts of the nature of Rosenzweig's project. To be sure, the topic of divine perfection squares poorly with many of the contemporary readings of Rosenzweig that take his critique of idealism to entail a rejection of metaphysics. ³ While nonpropositional and postmetaphysical interpretations of Rosenzweig pose difficulties for the topic of divine perfection, it is the apophatic readings of Rosenzweig that present the most daunting challenge. Adopting such a position, William Franke has recently contended that Rosenzweig is "the preeminent apophatic thinker of modern times." ⁴ Elliot Wolfson has also made a forceful argument that the Star culminates in apophasis. ⁵ While I cannot embrace Franke's or Wolfson's conclusions, their arguments are exemplary in the manner in which they read critically against the grain of the text. Taken on face value, one could not attribute an...